<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (9) TMI 620 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305276</link>
    <description>A co-operative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act is not automatically &#039;State&#039; under Article 12 or ordinarily amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Applying Ajay Hasia and Pradeep Kumar Biswas, the Court treated the relevant test as deep and pervasive governmental control, including financial, functional and administrative domination. Extensive regulatory powers under the statute were held to be supervisory rather than controlling, and the society&#039;s member-focused functions, bye-laws and absence of a statutory public duty did not justify writ relief. The earlier absolute view that no writ lies against a co-operative society was therefore not good law; writ jurisdiction remains available only where Article 12 status or a recognised statutory public duty is shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2022 16:47:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=696876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 620 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305276</link>
      <description>A co-operative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act is not automatically &#039;State&#039; under Article 12 or ordinarily amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Applying Ajay Hasia and Pradeep Kumar Biswas, the Court treated the relevant test as deep and pervasive governmental control, including financial, functional and administrative domination. Extensive regulatory powers under the statute were held to be supervisory rather than controlling, and the society&#039;s member-focused functions, bye-laws and absence of a statutory public duty did not justify writ relief. The earlier absolute view that no writ lies against a co-operative society was therefore not good law; writ jurisdiction remains available only where Article 12 status or a recognised statutory public duty is shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>